I'm not interested in disucssing statistical analysys until it can be proven that the creationist community has access to the data source on the 14C dates for the Ferguson Chronology, among other things. Also, if cannot be established where rings were subjectively added by researchers, then there is no point in talking about statistics. Real science requires original data.
As it is a huge majority of the "matches" involve rings of "0" width. So if you put enough "0"'s into the ring width list at the right places, then you can created whatever signal you want to match with whatever. My current hypothesis is that the "0"'s were fraudlently placed. So provide the data and the answers first.
How, exactly, does any of that answer my questions? I asked why the ICR folks haven't done this. Did you read it slowly enough.
It doesn't need bristle cone pine or any specific trees so arguing about what is available and not is an utter red herring (and just as smelly). They can sample 3 or 4 different species of trees in different locations over just a 1,000 or 2,000 years. If the method is so full of error they will be able to easily demonstrate it.
However, you avoid commenting on where the results of the ICR (or others) work is. The reason you do this is because they haven't done it. And the reason they haven't done it is because they know very well what the outcome will be if they are honest when they do the work.
Now, instead of flapping around all over the place pretending to do maths just answer the question actually raised could you?
™ Version 4.2